Mohanan v Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd and Others

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945** **CRP NO. 110 OF 2022** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 550/2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** MOHANAN AGED 63 YEARS S/O. GANGADHARAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, NANDIPURAM P.O, NANDIPURAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK - 680312. BY ADV P.T.JOSE ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682030., NOW IN PAO/400, 220KV SUBSTATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O, PALLIKKARA, KOCHI - 682303, REPRESENTED BY DEPUTY MANAGER. 2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR(L.A), POWERGRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD, CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE - 673017., NOW IN THRIKKAKARA VILLAGE, KANAYANNOOR TALUK, KAKKANAD P.O, 682030. 3 STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI - 682030. 4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD, REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSEB LTD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695001. ## **OTHER PRESENT:** SR.GP.K.P.HARISH;SC FOR KSEB A.ARUNKUMAR THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.108/2023, THE COURT ON 16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -2- ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE V.G.ARUN** **FRIDAY, THE 16[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2024 / 27TH MAGHA, 1945** **CRP NO. 108 OF 2023** **AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT OPELE 550/2013 OF VI ADDITIONAL DISTRICT COURT, ERNAKULAM** ## **REVISION PETITIONER/S:** POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, MAVELIPURAM COLONY, KAKKANAD, COCHIN - 682 030, PRESENTLY AT CONSTRUCTION AREA OFFICE, 400/220, KV SUB STATION, KUMARAPURAM P.O, PALLIKKARA, ERNAKULAM REPRESENTED BY ITS SENIOR GENERAL MANAGER, PIN - 683565 BY ADV MILLU DANDAPANI ## **RESPONDENT/S:** 1 MOHANAN AGED 66 YEARS S/O GANGADHARAN, THOTTATHIL HOUSE, NANDIPURAM PO, NANDIPURAM VILLAGE, MUKUNDAPURAM TALUK, PIN - 680733 2 THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR (LA), POWER GRID CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. CHEVARAMBALAM, KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673017 3 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY DISTRICT COLLECTOR, ERNAKULAM, KOCHI, PIN - 682030 4 KERALA STATE ELECTRICITY BOARD - KSEB REPRESENTED BY CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR KSEB LTD., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001 BY ADV P.T.JOSE CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -3- **THIS CIVIL REVISION PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.12.2023, ALONG WITH CRP.108/2023, THE COURT ON 16.02.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -4- ## **ORDER** Dated this the 16[th] day of February, 2024 These revision petitions are filed challenging the common order passed by the Additional District Judge-VI, Ernakulam in O.P. (Electricity) No.550 of 2013. The original petition was filed by the revision petitioner in CRP No.110 of 2022 (hereinafter called 'the claimant'), being dissatisfied with the compensation awarded towards the damage and loss sustained due to the drawing of 400 KV lines across his property by the Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd (hereinafter called 'the Corporation'). The essential facts are as under; The claimant is in ownership and possession of landed property having an extent of 8.98 Ares in Sy.No.395/1 of Nandipuram Village in Mukundapuram Taluk. The land was cultivated with various yielding and non-yielding trees. CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -5- According to the claimant, to facilitate drawing of the lines and smooth transmission of power, large number of trees were cut from his property. The drawing of high tension lines rendered the land underneath and adjacent to the lines useless, resulting in diminution of the value of the property. In spite of the huge loss suffered by the claimant, only an amount of Rs.1,28,814/was paid as compensation towards the value of yielding and non-yielding trees cut. Surprisingly, no compensation was granted for diminution in land value. Hence, the original petition was filed, seeking enhanced compensation towards the value of trees cut and diminution in land value. 2. The court below rejected the claim for enhanced compensation for the value of trees cut since no evidence in support of the claim was produced. As far as the claim for enhanced compensation towards diminution in land value is CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -6- concerned, the court below relied on Ext.A5 document as well as Exts.C12 and C12(a) commission report and sketch. The Advocate Commissioner reported that the petitioner's property lies about 100 metres away from an Ice Company and a Panchayath tar road and also, 1.3 km away from the Kanathodu junction on Kodakara road which is a bus route. The existence of a Government school within 2.5 Kms, a temple within 1.7 km and a church within 1 Km of the property was also noted. Based on these factors, the court below fixed the land value of the claimant's property by deducting 20% of the value shown in Ext.A5 property. Relying on Ext.C12(a) sketch, the extent of central corridor was held to be 1.013 cents and of the outer corridors, 7.610 cents. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value was granted as compensation and for the outer corridors, 20% of the land value. Accordingly, the claimant was found entitled to CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -7- compensation of Rs.3,47,016/-. Dissatisfied with the quantum of enhancement, the claimant has filed CRP No.110 of 2022, whereas, the Corporation has filed CRP No.108 of 2023 contending that the enhancement ordered is far in excess of the actual damage sustained. 3. Heard Adv.P.T.Jose for the claimant and Adv.Millu Dandapani for the Corporation. 4. Learned Counsel for the claimant contended that the court below committed gross illegality in refusing to grant enhanced compensation for the loss sustained due to the cutting of valuable trees, in spite of the Advocate Commissioner assessing and reporting the loss. The findings in the Commissioner's report were not relied on by the court below for the reason that the property was inspected much after the trees were cut. The said reasoning is flawed since the trees were cut much after issuance of notification by the Corporation and the cause of CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -8- action for filing the original petition arose only on payment of the initial compensation, even later. It is submitted that the claimant's property lies about 100 metres away from an Ice Company and a Panchayat tar road and also, 1.3 Km away from the Kanathodu junction on Kodakara road which is a bus route. Moreover, a Government school situated within 2.5 Km and the property is situated near to important places of worship. Without considering these crucial factors, 20% deduction was made from the value of the property involved in Ext.A5 document. 5. It is submitted that the court below grossly erred in granting only 40% of the land value fixed for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors. Considering the extent of damage sustained and the diminution in land value consequent to the drawing of lines, the court below ought to have granted compensation as claimed. CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -9- 6. Learned Counsel for the Corporation contended that, compensation towards diminution in land value granted is exorbitant and there is no rationale in granting 9% interest on that amount. The court below also erred in relying on Ext.A5 for fixing the land value of the claimant's property. As the drawing of electric lines does not prohibit the landowner from conducting agricultural activities and putting up small structures, 40% of the land value granted for the central corridor and 20% for the outer corridors are exorbitant. 7. A careful scrutiny of the impugned order reveals that the claim for enhancement of compensation towards the value of trees cut was rightly rejected since no supporting material, other than the findings in the Advocate Commissioner's report, was made available. As found by the court below, apart from the interested testimony of a solitary witness, who CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -10- was the claimant in some of the connected cases, no other independent witness was examined to prove the claim. It is also not in dispute that the trees were cut in the year 2011 and the commissioner inspected the property in the year 2015 and assessed the value of the trees on a comparison with the trees standing in the nearby properties. Such comparison, having no scientific basis, is not sufficient to discard the contemporaneous valuation statement prepared by the Corporation. 8. As far as the diminution in land value is concerned, the factors to be taken into consideration, as laid down in _**KSEB v. Livisha**_ ## _**[(2007) 6 SCC 792]**_ are as under; “ _10. The situs of the land, the distance between the high voltage electricity line laid thereover, the extent of the line thereon as also the fact as to whether the high voltage line passes over a small tract of land or through the middle of the land and other_ CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -11- _similar relevant factors in our opinion would be determinative. The value of the land would also be a relevant factor. The owner of the land furthermore, in a given situation may lose his substantive right to use the property for the purpose for which the same was meant to be used.”_ On careful scrutiny of the impugned order, it is seen that the compensation was enhanced after taking all the above factors into consideration. The nature of the land, the cultivation therein, the commercial importance of the area and the manner in which the land was affected by drawing of the lines have all been considered for fixing the land value as well as the percentage of diminution. The court below has deducted only 20% of the land value in Ext.A5, which according to me, is a reasonable deduction. For the central corridor, 40% of the land value is granted as compensation and for the outer corridors, 20% is granted, which I find to be just and proper. As such, there is no illegality or material CRP Nos.110/2022 & 108/2023 -12- irregularity in the impugned order, warranting intervention by this Court in exercise of the revisional power under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure. For the aforementioned reasons, the civil revision petitions filed by the claimant as well as the Corporation are dismissed. The Power Grid Corporation shall pay the enhanced compensation fixed by the court below within three months of receipt of a copy of this order. Sd/- **V.G.ARUN JUDGE** Scl/